Sunday, May 14, 2017

OFF THE WIRE
The militarization of American policing is a controversial subject.
Some say the police have to arm themselves like soldiers so that they
can keep up with the threats posed by terrorists and drug gangs. Others
maintain that the line that has traditionally separated the police
function from the military function has been badly blurred and, as a
result, the police are now using confrontational tactics and unnecessary
violence. In January 2015 President Obama ordered several changes to
the federal programs that provide armored military vehicles and weapons
to local police agencies. That order did little to resolve the
controversy. The order was criticized from all sides for doing too
little and also for going too far. This primer will briefly describe
the federal programs that contribute to the militarization trend at the
local level and the tactics of paramilitary units in American
communities. The primer will conclude with several policy
recommendations.Background
Following riots in Los Angeles in 1965 and the mass shooting at the
University of Texas in 1966, several big city police departments started
to create special tactical teams to respond to emergencies, such as
hostage situations and active shooters. These tactical units are
commonly referred to as SWAT teams (Special Weapons and Tactics), but
different jurisdictions sometimes use other names, such as “Special
Response Team.”
During the 1980s, with the escalation of the drug war, the SWAT teams
also began to take on a more expansive role in domestic law
enforcement. A few hundred paramilitary raids a year gradually became
tens of thousands as tactical units were increasingly used to serve
search warrants.
Today, police departments around the country launch approximately
80,000 raids a year. Roughly four out of every five raids today are
serving search warrants instead of addressing extraordinarily dangerous
situations.
Unfortunately, the drastic expansion of the use of raids to serve
warrants has led to an increase in the number of botched raids. A SWAT
raid is an inherently violent, dangerous event. Property damage is
common, with battered doors and broken windows. Family pets, especially
dogs, are sometimes killed due to their reaction to the invading
agents.
Far too often, there is an human cost to the raid as well. Here are a few examples:

On July 29, 2008, a SWAT team from the Prince George’s County (Md.)
Sheriff’s office burst into the residence of the mayor of Berwyn
Heights, MD, Cheye Calvo. Police had been tracking a package of
marijuana from Arizona when it was delivered to Calvo’s door. Without
any further investigation, the police stormed the Calvo residence. The
family’s two dogs were shot and killed. Soon thereafter, it became
evident that Calvo had nothing to do with the drug package. The
marijuana had been mailed to his house either by mistake or so some
third party could pick it up before the Calvos could retrieve it from
their front porch.

In January of 2011, police in Framingham, MA raided an apartment in
search of drugs after confidential informants reported making drug
purchases “around” the area. When police smashed the door of the
apartment, they found 68-year-old Eurie Stamps, not one of the suspects,
laying on the floor with his hands above his head. One of the officers
kept his M4 rifle trained on Stamps as the other officers searched the
apartment. When the officer pointing the gun moved to secure Stamps, he
claims his gun accidentally discharged, killing Stamps.

In the early hours of May 28, 2014, a Habersham County (Ga.) SWAT
team raided the home of the Phonesavanh family. Police were serving a
warrant in search of a family member who had allegedly sold a small
amount of drugs to an undercover officer. This was a “no-knock” raid,
meaning the police did not knock on the door or announce their presence
prior to breaking into the home. The family was taken by surprise, and
when officers could not get the bedroom door open, they lobbed in a
“flashbang” grenade. The door wouldn’t open because the crib of a
19-month-old child was pushed against it. The flash grenade landed in
the child’s crib and exploded. The child survived his injuries after
several surgeries, but will be permanently scarred. The suspected drug
dealer was not at the home when the raid occurred. He was later
arrested without incident at another location.

Paramilitary raids sometimes lead to the tragic killings of police
officers as well. On January 4, 2012, a “Narcotics Strike Force Team” in
Ogden, Utah kicked in the door of Matthew David Stewart while serving a
drug warrant. Stewart, a veteran who admitted to growing marijuana to
treat his PTSD, was asleep when he heard his door being smashed in.
Stewart grabbed a 9mm pistol and fired on what he perceived to be
criminal intruders. One officer was killed and five more were injured.
Stewart himself was shot multiple times before eventually surrendering
to police.Federal Role in State and Local Militarization
The federal government has contributed to the spread of paramilitary
police units and to the “warrior cop” mentality of police culture.
Through federal grants and equipment transfer programs, state and local
police departments have become heavily armed.
The 1033 program, administered through the Department of Defense,
allows for the free transfer of military surplus weapons, equipment, and
vehicles, to state and local law enforcement. A task force
commissioned by the White House in 2015 found that the 1033 program,
along with similar transfer programs, were not properly overseeing local
law enforcement’s use of the equipment, not adequately training
recipients, and not coordinating with other federal agencies to ensure
that slipshod police departments were barred from the program.
The federal government also plies state and local law enforcement
with billions of dollars in federal security grants and civil asset
forfeiture payouts. The justifications for these transfers and grants
typically relate to the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, but there
are reasons to be skeptical that the equipment is actually used against
drug cartels or to protect national security.
When officials in Keene, NH, applied to the federal government for
funding for a BearCat tactical vehicle, for example, by citing a
terrorist threat to the annual town pumpkin festival, one city council
member stated: “Our application talked about the danger of domestic
terrorism, but that’s just something you put in the grant application to
get the money. What red-blooded American cop isn’t going to be excited
about getting a toy like this? That’s what it comes down to.”
Policing has historically been the province of state and local
governments. These federal programs undermine the traditional balance
between the federal government and the states. When law enforcement
agencies turn to the federal government, rather than their locally
elected officials, for equipment and funding, the goals of those police
agencies can shift away from local crime-fighting priorities.
Some police commanders have experienced regret. In September 2015,
the Burlington Police Department in Vermont decided to stop accepting
transfers of federal military equipment. Here is how Chief Brandon del
Pozo explained his reasoning: “There are times when military-style
equipment is essential for public safety, but they are very rare. We
have the resources to handle all but the most inconceivable public
safety scenarios. Amassing a worst-case scenario arsenal of military
equipment results in officers seeing everyday policework through a
military lens. When I realized what a small role the military played in
equipping our police, I concluded it was better to return the items.”Militarization of Federal Agencies
State and local law enforcement are not the only beneficiaries of the
federal push for militarization. Federal regulatory agencies have also
acquired military weapons and equipment. A 2016 report commissioned
by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 found
that between 2006-2014, the federal government spent more than $335
million equipping agencies like the EPA, IRS, and Smithsonian
Institution with guns, ammunition, and other military equipment, such as
night-vision goggles and grenade launchers.
The militarization of regulatory agencies is unjustified. The
federal government already has several agencies that are tasked with law
enforcement responsibilities, such as the FBI. Conclusion

The use of special tactical teams should be reserved for potentially
deadly emergencies, such as hostage situations, active shooters, and
barricaded suspects. They should not be used for routine law
enforcement practices, such as serving search warrants.

The federal government should not provide military weapons to local
civilian police. At the least, never directly, without the explicit
approval of locally elected officials. When local civilian oversight is
bypassed, there is a danger that the police will become unresponsive and
unaccountable to the local electorate’s policy preferences and
priorities.

Federal regulatory agencies do not need paramilitary units. The FBI
has SWAT units and should be called upon when their extraordinary
weapons and tactics are actually needed.